KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 107/12
JUDGMENT DATED : 29.06.12
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. ACTING PRESIDENT
SMT. A. RADHA : HON. MEMBER
R. Jayaprakash, “Vijay”,
T.C. 6/1164, House No.124,
KERA, Harismrithi Lane, : APPELLANT
Kanjirampara,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.
(By Adv. B. Ajay Kumar)
Vs.
1. Indian Airlines Ltd.,
No.113,
Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Airport Manager,
Indian Airlines Ltd.,
Bangalore.
3. The Manager,
Indian Airlines Ltd.,
Thiruvananthapuram. : RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : HON. ACTING PRESIDENT
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC NO. 102/2006 filed on 28.3.06 dated: 31.08.2011. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that; opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.1,000/- as costs within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The allegation of the complainant in the Forum below that the complainant traveled from Delhi to Bangalore in the Indian Airlines flight to attend 3 days conference at Hubali organized by the National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India. One of the baggage was missing and could not be traced out. The complainant could not present papers in the seminar and moreover the dress intended to be worn for the seminar was in the missing baggage which resulted in an absolute crisis. The said instances occurred as a result of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and hence sought for compensation.
3. The date of the missing of the baggage that on 24.4.05 the said unaccompanied 3 bags sent by the staff of the airlines at Delhi Airport at the time of the taking boarding pass. The 3 bags with properly sealed and all of them were tagged at the Indian Airlines. Then check-in counter at Delhi airport by the officials of the opposite party, that when the flight arrived at Bangalore, it was found one bag was missing, that complainant reported the same to the authorities of the opposite parties, that initially the officials did not take any action at all., later the officials registered a property report, that the files and other essential data, clothes etc. were packed in the bag which was missing then the complainant approached to the opposite parties on many times and enquired about the bag over telephone on several times, that complainant had no other alternative, but to make shopping of clothes etc. to attend the conference, that he was not in a position to deliver the well prepared speech and take classes as his files and research materials were not available with him, which caused severe mental agony and disappointment to the complainant. On 27.04.2005 while the complainant was returning from Bangalore he went to the airport and enquired about the baggage. The opposite parties disclosed that the missing bag was found out, that on taking delivery of the bag, the complainant found that the alleged missing tag was attached to the bag, that had it been delivered to the complainant at the proper time he could have attended the conference properly and could have made use of the materials kept in the bag. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation along with costs.
4. The opposite parties contended through their written version that there is no deficiency in service on their part they admitted that the baggage was not ready at the time of the arrival of the passenger at the arrival launch and it was delivered. In other words, in the written version the opposite parties admitted the incident without any hesitation. But the very same time contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The evidence consisted of Exts. P1 to P4 and the 3rd opposite party as filed affidavit and marked as Exts. D1 to D4.
6. The Forum below discussed 3 points raised by them for consideration accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The Forum below has taken a view that the allegation in the complaint is true and it was proved by the evidence adduced by the appellant/complainant. The Forum below found that it is pertinent to note that though the complainant had deposed that his case is not against delay but the willful negligence because of which a tagged baggage was not sent in the flight. But the negligence is not pleaded in the complaint nor proved it with cogent evidence. Admittedly, one bag did not reach at Bangalore along with the flight, thereby it can be conceived that there was delay in deliver one bag. It is not seen stated in the version when did opposite party trace the baggage at Delhi Airport and forwarded by IC 904 of the same day under rush tag no. 020837. But as per Ext.D3 it is seen that the said baggage was forwarded under rush tag No. 020837 on 25.04.2005. Further as per Ext.D1 PIR is seen filled on 24.04.05. On perusal of Ext.D1 and D2 the Forum below comes to the arrival that there was a delay of one day in rushing the traced baggage to the airport concerned. The opposite party has no case that they had delivered the entrusted baggage to the complainant on 24.04.05, thereby there is delay in delivering the missing baggage, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which opposite parties cannot escape from the liability to compensate the complainant. In view of the above, the Forum below fixed the amount of compensation as Rs.10,000/-. In the result, the Forum below directed the opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- as costs within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. On the day of 20.6.12, the appeal came before this commission for final hearing; the appellant is present or ready for argument and there is no representation for R2 and R3. The respondent No.1 called absent on 11.04.12. The appeal is top in the list and heard the counsel for the appellant in detail. For the hearing of the respondents 2 and 3 the case already adjourned the hearing of the appeal on the day of 22.6.12 again. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the respondents called absent. The appellant was heard on the day of 20.6.12 in detail.
8. The argument of the complainant is that to enhance the compensation and cost ordered by the Forum below by allowing this appeal. He argued that the appeal on the grounds of appeal memorandum that; the compensation ordered the Forum below is without any norms and principles. The fact is that the bag of the complainant is seen missed at the time of the arrival at the arrival launch at Bangalore airport which is admitted by the opposite parties and later the complainant arrived at the airport for collected the baggage. The real fact submitted by the counsel for the appellant is that the baggage was not unloaded at Bangalore airport. Hence this bag has again gone to Delhi and returned in the very same aircraft. Later it arrived from Delhi to Bangalore. The counsel for the appellant submitted that his bag contained very important documents and his executive dress including suit, tie etc. He came to Bangalore for attending a very important conference and to deliver a knowledge based talk to the members of the National Federation of Insurance. He is a very bulky man it is not easy to fit any alternative dresses for him. There is no sufficient time to stitch the suit for this purpose within a short time. The counsel argued that the complainant’s performance was not up to the mark due to the wearing of unsuitable dress and non availability of research and important file and documents which already put in the bag. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the ultimate research is that the complainant who could not perform well he did his maximum. His performance was not up to the mark it affected his reputation as the convention was arranged by an activated professional group in the insurance business. He prays to allow this appeal and to enhance the compensation up to Rs.50,000/- under the head of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. Heard in detail, the non appearance continuously on the part of the respondents/opposite parties shows that they have no serious objection to enhance the compensation awarded by the Forum below in this case. This commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence adduced by both sides. There is no doubt that the missing of an unaccompanied bag or any baggage which will caused so much hurdle and difficulties to a passenger in a flight. In this case, this is serious deficiency which committed by the opposite parties. According to the complainant this loss of bag contributed so many troubles in his discharge of lecture class in the convention. The opposite parties did not prefer any appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In the circumstance, it is a fit case to enhance the compensation ordered by the Forum below. This commission has decided to enhance the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for the interest of justice. It is highly necessary to enhance the compensation as per these findings of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- as costs under the head of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.
The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered
accordingly. I hereby do so.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA: HON. ACTING PRESIDENT
Da
